State Laws Restricts Employers’ Use of Social Security Numbers

In recent years identity protection has become an increasingly big deal. Specifically, the handling of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) by companies has been reworked in a number of states in order to better safeguard their employees against identity theft. The sudden concern arose primarily due to companies putting employee’s financial information at risk for years by asking for SSNs in places they really do not need to be. Identification cards, employment applications, pay stubs, mail, or even the electronic transmission of SSNs via the internet all unnecessarily heighten the risk for identity theft. With today’s criminals consistently finding new ways to exploit inadequate security systems, it’s important that companies and employers strive to cut down on excessive exposure of sensitive information.

In most states across the U.S. it is illegal to do the following:

  • · Publicly display or post more than the last four digits of SSNs.
  • · Print SSNs on employees’ badges, parking permits or timecards.
  • · Require people to use their SSN to access a website unless encrypted or over a secure connection.
  • · Use more than the last four digits to access a website unless a password or other unique identifier is also required.
  • · Use more than the last four digits of an SSN as an employee number.
  • · Send SSNs through the mail, unless the documents are applications or other such forms; and then SSNs must not be visible through a windowed envelope.
  • · Keep unsecured files containing SSNs and allow non authorized personnel access to such files.

The California Office of Privacy Protection has put together a set of recommendations, click here, for any entities who wish to tighten up their SSN practices.

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Massachusetts CORI Reform Law and its Implications on Employer Background Checks

There has been a surge in legislation across the U.S. with the goal of curtailing employer use of criminal records that bar employment opportunities for ex-offenders. Take for example the new EEOC guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records and the proliferation of “ban-the-box” laws.

With the enactment of the 2010 Massachusetts Criminal Offender Records Information (CORI) Reform bill, employers face a wave of changes in their use and access to criminal records.

Continue reading

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Education Background Screening and Human Resource Stories in the News Last Week

Pennsylvania takes retroactive steps to prevent convicted felons from working in school districts.

A new law signed by Pennsylvania Governor, Tom Corbett, mandates background checks on public, private and vocational school workers. School district administrators must notify all employees of the law and return a form reporting any criminal history to the Pennsylvania State Education Association completed by employees. Certain convictions will lead to employment suspensions or even termination including first-, second-, or third-degree felonies, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and other crimes. Read more

How background checks are conducted in Clark County, Nevada Schools.

The Las Vegas Sun investigates how background checks are done, after a teacher in a Clark County school was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and theft of school property. In an investigative interview, the chief human resources officer and former interim chief human resources officer of the Clark County School District answered questions on their background check procedures. Read more

Update: Background Checks Dealing with School Workers Clarified.

A new law, §1-111 Act 24 of 2011, mandates that all Pennsylvania elementary schools must background screen all new hires and existing staff for criminal history. The form that current staff must fill out asks employees to check “arrested,” “convicted,” “never been arrested,” or “never been convicted,” however the law states that only convictions of employees need to be reported. In a response to concerns surrounding this contradiction, a statement was released to clarify the law.

A publication from Fox Rothschild LLP states that “these amendments restrict those people that a school is allowed to hire, but they have almost no direct impact on the employment of those already employed. Some school administrators have mistakenly stated that these amendments require schools to fire a current employee where a prior conviction for a barred offense comes to light. While this may be true in some limited cases, it is generally not so, and neither this statute nor the companion provision in §5-527 requires termination of employment.” Read more

Convicted felon employed at middle school steals jewelry, computers

After a middle school janitor was charged in connection to jewelry and computer thefts, the School Committee Chairman of a Massachusetts school wants to know more about the school’s criminal background screening procedures. Court documents showed that the janitor pled guilty to assault and battery and breaking and entering charges in the past. Also, he was allegedly in an outpatient drug treatment program for an opiates addiction. Initial reports in the same case were for stolen MacBook Computers, iPads and other equipment. How did a criminal get employed at an elementary school? Read more

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Considering a Prospective Employee’s Financial History for Future Employment?

 

In May, 2011 a job applicant sued Toojay’s Mgmt. Corp, a private employer, when after the interview process the employer rescinded an offer of employment after finding out the applicant filed for bankruptcy in the past.

The applicant claimed that the company’s actions violated a section of the Bankruptcy Code, which states that:

“No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt…”

The court rejected the applicant’s claim, since the applicant was not yet an employee and the company was simply reacting on facts provided by a background check. Read more about this case.

 

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon